BioShock Infinite review: In the sky, Lord, in the sky

Irrational's effort is a masterpiece of interactive world-building and storytelling.

Game Details

Developer: Irrational GamesPublisher: 2K GamesPlatform: PC (reviewed), Xbox 360, PS3Release Date: March 26, 2013Price: $59.99Links:Steam | Amazon | Official websiteSpoilers covering roughly the first third of BioShock Infinite follow. Nothing should be surprising to anyone who has followed the game through trailers and interviews up to this point, but those wishing to experience the beginning of the game completely fresh should consider themselves warned.

The first thing I did after I finished BioShock Infinite was sit in front of the screen for a few minutes thinking about what I had just seen. The second thing I did after I finished BioShock Infinite was play the ending section a second time, to make sure I had understood what I saw the first time (turns out I hadn't). The third thing I did after I beat BioShock Infinite was try to sleep, but I instead spent the next few hours going over the whole game in my head, even though it was after 2:30 in the morning and I was flying out for the start of a PAX East/Game Developers Conference megatrip the next day.

I'm not going to spoil the details of the thought-provoking, time-and-space-bending, utterly satisfying ending of BioShock Infinite here, which means I can't really directly discuss what happens for any of the last third of the 13 or so hours I spent playing the game (this didn't include some of the optional quests and hidden bonuses).

What I will say is that the ending is literally jaw-dropping. I am actually using that term correctly—there were two distinct times that my jaw involuntarily fell open when I realized what was happening in front of me. That might sound a little dramatic (and the late hour that I finished the frantic prerelease playthrough may have contributed to it), but looking back, I think it was the right reaction.

Infinite's ending is a bit more open-ended than the famously mind-blowing ending of the original BioShock. Many of the narrative choices are going to provoke a lot of discussion and theorizing among fans. That's likely by design, and it ends up being much more intriguing than an ending that simply lays out every answer directly.

It's rare to play a game with a narrative that comes together as well as BioShock Infinite's. It's the kind of ending that seems inevitable in retrospect, yet hard to see coming before it is suddenly barreling toward you. Then, when it hits, it makes you look at everything you experienced beforehand a little differently, and it makes you eager to reanalyze what you thought you knew before.

Of course, here I am getting ahead of myself, rambling on about the ending to a game that I haven't even begun to describe yet (which should in itself tell you something about how I regard that conclusion). Put simply, BioShock Infinite is an early contender for game of the year, a masterpiece of design and world-building which shows the care and attention to detail inherent in its nearly five-year development process.

Welcome to Columbia

The most appealing part of BioShock Infinite is simply exploring the floating city of Columbia, a world that comes to life through details both incidental and unavoidable. Originally designed as a part of the World's Columbian Exposition at the end of the 19th century, Columbia went on to travel the country, docking to pick up new pilgrims that were attracted by the city's jingoistic reverence for America's founding fathers and their ideals. Or at least their ideals as interpreted by Samuel Comstock, a wholly American strain of prophet who demands an explicitly religious reverence from Columbia's citizens. When China's Boxer Rebellion took a number of Americans hostage at the turn of the 20th Century, Columbia rejected the more conciliatory position of the US government, raining fire on the Chinese from above and formally seceding from the country it revered over the issue.

This is all background for the entry of protagonist Booker Dewitt, a blank slate coming as a stranger into the fully formed society of Columbia in 1912. With only the vague goal to "Bring us the girl and wipe away the debt," Dewitt ends up on a search for Elizabeth, Comstock's daughter and the "lamb of Columbia" who seems fated to take over for her father. Rescuing Elizabeth begins a companionship between Elizabeth and Dewitt that drags the latter into the mystery of the "tears," holes to other points in time and space that Elizabeth can manipulate somewhat unreliably. As the game goes on, Dewitt gets drawn into the mystery of those tears and into the politics of the Vox Populi, a rebel group looking to rise up against the cruel ruling class.

In prerelease previews of Infinite much has been made of the relationship between Dewitt and Elizabeth, and the way her presence at your side gives you an emotional tie to the world around you. I'll admit that it's easy to grow fond of Elizabeth as the two of you work through the game's mysteries together, especially if you take the time to watch her ever-changing facial expressions and body language during the frequent banter between her and Dewitt. That said, I found the people and places that made up the world of Columbia to be the more compelling part of the game.

The original BioShock was a dead and lonely place, whose story was told primarily through audio logs and bits of ephemera left behind by its once thriving civilization. Infinite also has these bits of recorded history hidden about, and they're a great way to get a feel for characters' motivations and back story in a way that's minimally pedantic or expository. But it's even more satisfying to learn about the world just by observing the scenery and the people going about their everyday lives, all rendered with wonderful art and voice work.

Around one corner, you may find a map showing the former landing schedule for Columbia as it traveled around the country. At a nearby outdoor cafe, a couple talks disdainfully about the Vox Populi as a "foreign sounding" menace, echoing the message of a Vox shooting gallery at a nearby fair. Down the street from them, past the giant, reverent statue of Comstock, a barbershop quartet sings a beautifully old-fashioned yet seemingly out-of-place version of "God Only Knows" by the Beach Boys. Down an alley from them, in front of faded propaganda posters, schoolchildren play and sing a schoolyard rhyme about falling from Columbia's heights to the ground below.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

While I'm sure the game is awesome, it's hard to look forward to a story that doesn't use any of the advantages of the media; The Mass Effect series managed to incorporate plenty of player choice even while saddled with an extensive fixed storyline.

I agree with your main point, but not entirely with your reasoning. There are some games with excellent stories that had zero player choice, but excellent gameplay. As an old gamer, the first ones that come to mind are "System Shock 2" and "Thief 2". No player choice, yet great story and extremely fun gameplay that give you a powerful, consistent series of adrenaline rushes in exciting moments.

The thing that makes me say "Ugh" is that the author of the review specifically stated that the gameplay itself, which apparently is the shooting part, was lackluster. Great story + lackluster gameplay = probably shoulda been a movie. Can't say until I play, of course.

I categorically don't like "on-rails" games. Games without player agency can be good - I play Freecell all the time (on my phone while waiting for things). But puzzle games don't maintain my interest, and certainly aren't worth a ton of money and the effort I put into maintaining my gaming PC (PvZ excepted due to the strategy and theme elements).

"On-rails" games suffer from being full price while also being short. Whether or not it's a good shooter I can't judge, although the review makes it seem iffy to mediocre. I'm sure a lot of people really enjoy a good story told well, and I do too - I see plenty of movies and read many books. Those would certainly be a better value than a short game would be.

I feel it's the wrong medium for that kind of project - If a player isn't picking in what order to do things or the camera angle, the (by many accounts quite good) story can benefit from better rendering and better sound than your average PC can output.

Surprised to hear about those who hold the original Bioshock with some level of disdain. If you didn't like that game, then I can't help but wonder about your overall enthusiasm for FPS gaming in general. Bioshock 1 and 2 (and I probably enjoyed '2' even more than the original) were the best I'd ever played.

Bottom line is that if you hated B'shock 1, you probably aren't going to like this one either.

Oh...and thanks Kyle!

Agreed.

I loved Bioshock 1. Less so for 2. But #1 is probably my favorite game of all time, both for gameplay and story. I loved the twist and I did not see it coming! The final battle was tiresome, but I'll forgive it.

I was not expecting much from Infinite and I still haven't purchased it. But with these reviews, I might.

Somehow everything just screams 'overrated', looking at the comments I can see I am not alone. I wonder what creates this impression? Also, every time someone says a story is good because of a 'twist' a kitten dies (and M. night Shyamalan makes another movie...).Anyway, it sure does look beautiful, but it is a little bit scary how readily gameplay gets downplayed in both this and another review I read. As if it is a secondary concern.

"Part of me thinks the game may have worked even better simply as a first-person exploration of this fleshed out and wholly unique culture, without the requisite shooting action."

I'd love playing a game like that. I think that many others would, too. But you can just hear the executives, "We need more shooting, because shooting sells." I think that's unfortunate.

I'm not so sure. There are "artsy" games on Steam, which some basically have called "interactive paintings"*. They don't seem to sell well. People want to do more in their games than just wander around going, "oh, ah".

*I've heard the reference, "tourism for the tourist who can't afford it".

I only read the beginning of your review to avoid spoilers, but at only 13 hours of gameplay I'm wondering if it's worth the $60, regardless of how good the story is. I've been duped by slick marketing before (too many times) and now you've got me worried about this game too.

I've ignored Bioshock for quite some time. Looks like I should return to that world for a bit of R&R.

I wasn't a big fan of the first two games. They were OK, but I didn't even remember that ending, I had to look it up. I'm also worried about the shooting/combat part. Satisfying combat is an important aspect of gaming experience for me. Although I enjoy good story and immersive atmosphere in a game but it all has to balance out.

I guess I'll add this to my Steam wishlist and wait for a sale. Thanks for the review!

Is the end of Bioshock actually good enough to warrant going to the trouble of getting there? After many hours I eventually gave up on it. I was sick of shooting Splicers, and found that I tended to just avoid Big Daddy/Little Sister pairs.

Seems like you missed on the key aspect of the game and now complain that it was boring....

Seems like you missed the part where I didn't say anything about it being boring - just tiring.

FWIW, and I wish I could remember the source for this: I read somewhere that Ayn Rand almost wrote a mystery novel set on an airship but decided to write Atlas Shrugged instead. Bioshock Infinite is indulging in some meta-alternate history on top of its alternate history!

FWIW, and I wish I could remember the source for this: I read somewhere that Ayn Rand almost wrote a mystery novel set on an airship but decided to write Atlas Shrugged instead. Bioshock Infinite is indulging in some meta-alternate history on top of its alternate history!

This game doesn't cover mush objectivist ground as its set around religious dictatorship although I guess it could have quite a lot to do with the libertarians I guess.

Instead of thinking of this game as an interactive movie, I'd suggest thinking of it as a theme park or a guided tour. A loosely guided, narrated experience. You get a little more freedom than a movie- you get to control your pacing, you get to stop and smell the roses, explore some of the back-story more if you wish; hear what some tertiary characters have to say, and so on.

Whereas a movie or book is a completely on-rails experience where the director or author has complete control of pacing, a video game will give you at least some control; at least control where to look, what to see, and when to see it. I feel like the game medium, because of this extra layer of control, could help with immersion (especially in a horror game)

I'll take 13 hours of high-quality content over 100 hours of repetitive drudgery any day.

Fallout was repetitive drudgery? There have been any number of games that were long and had branching stories, but weren't open-world.

> Comparing the complexity and quality of the story of BioShock with Fallout's.

With Fallout 3, you get good a reasonably detailed world and a shit, short story.With New Vegas you get a good, branching story but mediocre world.

With Infinite you get a world that's INSANELY detailed *and* a story that's much more intricate than "I have to find papa - oh wait he's dead now, let's kill the bad guys with a giant robot" or "multiple post-apocalyptic civilizations/tribes fighting over a dam and their minutiae."

Is the end of Bioshock actually good enough to warrant going to the trouble of getting there? After many hours I eventually gave up on it. I was sick of shooting Splicers, and found that I tended to just avoid Big Daddy/Little Sister pairs.

Seems like you missed on the key aspect of the game and now complain that it was boring....

Seems like you missed the part where I didn't say anything about it being boring - just tiring.

You can only get tired of BioShock before the twist if you haven't been collecting the audio tapes...

Honestly, I feel like Ken Levine is a master at making vivid worlds, with an amazing atmosphere, and truly interesting histories but in many ways I feel like the FPS aspect of them actually holds them back from what they truly excel at. I feel like the true spirit of these games lies an RPG just waiting to come into bloom so that the fiction and characters can get truly fleshed out without being tied up audiologs or visual cues and also without worrying so much about something jumping out at you and having the blast the fool. It sounds like BS:I has gone some way of alleviating the reliance on audiologs, but I am not sure it has gone far enough from what I am hearing (of course I havent played it yet). I dont speak for everyone, but a slower paced game that allows me to explore and dig deep into these fascinating worlds and sometimes it just feels at odds for what one expects from a game that is mechanically a shooter.

Shenmue, anyone?

I agree in that I would love a Bioshock game minus the shooting. I loved Shenmue, too - when I was in the right mood. That said, I agree with Ostracus in that there are games on Steam that are like Bioshock minus the shooting (Dear Esther?), and while they're cool, they don't sell as well, and even to me, they feel like they're missing something. Shenmue is actually a good example of what I want - really heavy on setting and atmosphere, not heavy on the game aspects of things, but the gaming it had was enough to keep things interesting.

Personally, I'm torn on this one. Given the praise, I'll probably get it, but I have misgivings. I burned myself out on FPSes over a decade ago, and I don't play them anymore because I don't enjoy them anymore. I tried the demo for Bioshock 1, and I found wandering around the world enthralling. I found shooting one or two baddies acceptable. As soon as they started coming in waves, though, I turned the damn thing off. I fear that I'll have the same response to Bioshock: Infinite, but I'm hoping that it turns out better.

My only beef with Bioshock was there wasn't enough incentive to really explore what you could do.

Like, Dishonored ends up being a great game because of the achievements/trophies. In order to get most of them, it involves having to play the game multiple times and to change tactics with each run.

However, if you don't care about trophies, then I guess there's no reason to ever replay Dishonored either... but then I think people are really missing out. I wish Bioshock was more like that... because after playing through it twice, I would go and compare notes with other gamers and that's when I realized I never really fully realized the potential of what could be done in that game.

I'll take 13 hours of high-quality content over 100 hours of repetitive drudgery any day.

Fallout was repetitive drudgery? There have been any number of games that were long and had branching stories, but weren't open-world.

> Comparing the complexity and quality of the story of BioShock with Fallout's.

With Fallout 3, you get good a reasonably detailed world and a shit, short story.With New Vegas you get a good, branching story but mediocre world.

With Infinite you get a world that's INSANELY detailed *and* a story that's much more intricate than "I have to find papa - oh wait he's dead now, let's kill the bad guys with a giant robot" or "multiple post-apocalyptic civilizations/tribes fighting over a dam and their minutiae."

Signed:A Fallout New Vegas fan.

With Bioshock you got neither the detailed world nor the branching storyline

Having not read any forums regarding the first Bioshock, I'm fortunate enough not to have read any spoilers about the game. I'm going to avoid reading this thread, too, to avoid getting spoiled.

I do remember seeing a preview video of this game about 3 or more years ago. For whatever reason, it didn't seem to interest me at the time. But, alas, I should have a go at it. I like a good story/narrative and well thought out universe in my games. It is why Half-Life was so groundbreaking at its time. (Now if only they'll release HL2:Ep3 and HL3 sometime, anytime soon, before the real world goes to crap.)

I am purposely not really reading reviews or watching videos as I do not want to have spoilers. So in this one I pretty much skipped to the ratings. Really looking forward to playing it.

Seems genious... You just look at a -usually- damn rating, and you proceed to purchase? Especially when the budget towards advertising of the game seems truly huge? It's has ads and "ad-reviews" everywhere... Just let it circulate a bit...

still haven't read/seen a single thing that would make me want to put this even on my steam $5 sale list. then again i found the first two to be boring at best. everything looks and sounds like it was made with the console in mind, and turned into pc shovelware.

Unfortunately, I personally found the original BioShock intolerable. No, really. Before everyone jumps down my throat let me explain. First, I do play FPS games, but not most of them because I don't find the story lines or lack thereof terribly compelling or because their combat system leaves a lot to be desired. Because of this general approach to games the "revelation" at the end of BioShock was a complete and total let down for me. To be clear, no one spoiled this for me, I went into the game with nothing but awesome trailers to go on...I really wanted to like it. Within the first 5 minutes I started playing the game I couldn't help thinking to myself: "This is stupid, why in the hell would I not just turn around and go back up the elevator and wait for some rescue?" Beyond food there is literally no reason to suffer and wade through this obvious hell. To play the entire game only to have my initial instincts reenforced made the game a massive waste of time. Couple that with (oh god here come the flames) a generally frustrating and only moderately interesting combat system meant that there was really no reason for _me_ to play this game. I do not pass judgement on those who enjoyed the game. If your instincts were to just play it because it's a game and that's "what you do" then I can absolutely see how revolutionary the ending would seem. I will grant that the world of the original BioShock (and Infinite) are expansive and inventive but I don't personally play an FPS to wander around a cool world only to do stuff that I personally find stupid.

All that being said, it makes me completely untrusting of reviews purporting a similar (no man it's way better!) revelation in BioShock Infinte. Can anyone who has played both actually confirm that this isn't the sort of thing that I'm going to see staring me in the face 2 minutes into the game? And I'm not talking about some sort of "the mother was the doctor" kind of riddle nonsense. Taking this review and my previous experience with the original Bioshock my only real take away is that this is more of the same combat wise and an empty promise of a new amazing ending. Please someone tell me that I'm just biased because I felt burned by the original and that I really should care about this game.

I will grant that the world of the original BioShock (and Infinite) are expansive and inventive but I don't personally play an FPS to wander around a cool world only to do stuff that I personally find stupid.

Different strokes Personally I liked wandering around Rapture and creating a mental image of the fallen society from all the little tidbits, especially those away from the main storyline. It was the interminable number of fights (not the mechanics, the fights themselves) which started wearing on me, especially since "winning" was the only option for the bigger ones. It'd be nice if FPS had more options to bypass fights for those who simply don't care about "beating the bosses".

In general, it was a good story. The main characters are complex and engaging, there are intriguing plot twists, and the ending has a satisfying quality of being a surprise, yet clearly being the conclusion we were moving towards from the very beginning.

The story appeared to be very much on rails. There were two occasions in which the player is directly asked to choose between two alternatives, but in neither case is it clear if that choice made any difference to the narrative.

I was watching this as if it were a movie, rather than playing it as a game, so this shifts my perspectives somewhat, but one thing that was painfully obvious to me in watching the videos of Bioshock: Infinity, is that a good story was undermined by absurdly frequent, tedious firefights. Yesterday (was it in this thread?) I followed a link to a recent video by game critic MrBtongue, TUN: Slow Down the Violence, in which MrBtongue suggests that too many games rely almost exclusively on violence as the subject of gameplay, and that this is pre-empting the development of more interesting game mechanics. Bioshock: Infinity seemed to illustrate this thoroughly.

The main plot of the story concerns the mystery of the relationships between a small number of characters. This is complicated by the secondary story, about a civil conflict between two political factions in the city. From the beginning, it is established that the player's character, Booker DeWitt, has a history of violence and brutality, and is wracked with guilt and shame over this. The nature of violence and brutality are explored as themes within the narrative, so including combat in the game advances that theme within the narrative.

The trouble is that there is so much of it that it ends up undermining the theme. Almost every time the protagonists need to move from Point A to Point B, they have to go through an extended firefight in an "arena" with multiple waves of opponents. Frequently this occurs when the participants in the firefight would probably rather avoid fighting anyway, or wouldn't recognize each other as opponents. Bypassing fights never seems to be an option, and there are few game problems that are solved in any way other than through combat. It's practically a throwback to the style of Doom, in which gameplay is entirely about killing all the enemies on the map, while searching for a key to a door.

One of many reasons this is frustrating is that Booker and Elizabeth each have a range of fantastic abilities, and Elizabeth's in particular are critical to the narrative; but, for the most part, they seem to appear simply as auxiliaries to combat. With a bit more imagination, any number of mind-bending puzzles could have been set up to be resolved with some combination of their special abilities.

I played through on 'Hard' difficulty with 'Ultra + Diffuse' settings yesterday in about 14 hours... so, yeah, I loved the story. Have never played the first two.

Verdict [9.5 of 10]:

- 'Best Story' since The Walking Dead interactive comic game. I found it compelling, suitably original and emotional at points.

- 'Best Interactive Movie' since the Batman Arkham City game. I'm not normally a fan of the interactive movie-type games, but if a company is going to do one they have to leverage the 'on rails' feeling to deliver an exceptional story, cutting edge graphics and preferably either new mechanics, or mechanics that are considerably more evolved over your typical MMO or sandbox game. I felt Bioshock: Infinite did two of the three exceptionally well, which carried otherwise decent mechanics.

- 'Best Graphics' since FarCry 3. In some ways it exceeded FarCry 3, in some ways it didn't. There are still areas for improvement - from designs made with console limitations in mind, to using flat animated textures for things like bugs on a cell floor. The quality of graphics was almost always exceptional where it needed to be, however. It's worth noting as a part of this opinion that I haven't played Crysis 3 because, well, EA doesn't like Steam - and I don't care for Origin.

- 'Best Soundtrack' since Fallout: New Vegas. I loved the barbershop versions of 80's pop songs that you could hear playing on various radios, as well as various songs sprinkled throughout the game that were difficult to miss. Attention was given to the songs used in this game, and it shows.

- 'Best NPC' in Elizabeth. Her interactions with the world, and with the player in combat are quite good. Her voice acting and characterization are all top notch - with her most poorly delivered lines better than 90% of the content in the new Oz movie.

Criticisms:

- There are parts where it's not clear that the penalty for going somewhere you shouldn't is being shot at.

- The mechanics in the game aspired to be like Dishonored, but fell short. The weapons were satisfactory, but the upgrades were too expensive for the coin found in game. The vigors were fun, but mostly seemed like elemental carbon copies of one another and were once again too expensive to upgrade given the coin found in game. This is not to say that there was nothing new - the Skyhook was kinda new, and your interactions with Elizabeth in combat did add something to gameplay. Still, the gameplay mechanics were probably the weakest aspect of the game despite being overall decent.

Edit: Upon reflection, I decided to label the mechanics decent rather than adequate after recalling the usage of rifts in certain cases. Generally, I didn't make much use of them, save in a few obvious points because I didn't need to. Still, they're there, they're quite useful at points and I can't think of another game that I've played that treats them the same way.

Unfortunately, I personally found the original BioShock intolerable. No, really. Before everyone jumps down my throat let me explain. First, I do play FPS games, but not most of them because I don't find the story lines or lack thereof terribly compelling or because their combat system leaves a lot to be desired. Because of this general approach to games the "revelation" at the end of BioShock was a complete and total let down for me. To be clear, no one spoiled this for me, I went into the game with nothing but awesome trailers to go on...I really wanted to like it. Within the first 5 minutes I started playing the game I couldn't help thinking to myself: "This is stupid, why in the hell would I not just turn around and go back up the elevator and wait for some rescue?" Beyond food there is literally no reason to suffer and wade through this obvious hell.

I respect your opinion and I have actually never typed this phrase on the Internet in all my years online, but it does seem to me that this WAS the point and you either kinda missed it or I guess it's possible it's just not the kind of thing that resonates with you. To me, it was a twist not just on the plot of that game, but on almost all games. I mean, really, why DOES Mario care about some princess he's never even met? Etc, etc. It's a twist on one of the core tropes of the medium.

FoolishOwl wrote:

One of many reasons this is frustrating is that Booker and Elizabeth each have a range of fantastic abilities, and Elizabeth's in particular are critical to the narrative; but, for the most part, they seem to appear simply as auxiliaries to combat. With a bit more imagination, any number of mind-bending puzzles could have been set up to be resolved with some combination of their special abilities.

This is apparently less of an issue on the harder difficulties. Players won't get by without mixing and matching the abilities in a more tactical way. It's why some reviewers/outlets are actually suggesting people play their first run on the harder difficulty setting. A truly brutal difficulty setting (1999 mode) unlocks after that. To be clear - I haven't yet played it.

Hah, "Buy it before someone spoils it" - great verdict! Gonna pick it up. I love games that tell a great story and provide a memorable experience. I remember feeling a bit of sadness when I finished Deus Ex HR - not because anything was wrong with the ending, but because it was over.

I've played about 45 minutes of it last night and don't like the way it handles death. You die, pay a fee and come back to the near exact, if not exact, location you died. Prey used a similar method to come back from death. Annoying.

I do notice that my machine stutters from time to time when changing areas. It's only for a second though and doesn't hamper my ability to play it. I find this odd since my 660Ti had no issues running Crysis 3 on very high settings with medium motion blur. Perhaps a future patch will tighten things up.

As for my thoughts so far, feels like every other FPS shooter so far. Does look great on ultra settings though...

I've played about 45 minutes of it last night and don't like the way it handles death. You die, pay a fee and come back to the near exact, if not exact, location you died. Prey used a similar method to come back from death. Annoying.

Could be worse. You die, go back to a checkpoint and have to do it all over again.

Watched my friend play it. What a squandered half billion dollars. If this was done as a true adventure game, and the events happened more organically, this game could be an 11. Rails and booooring combat.